The Watchtower — December 1, 1960

“Pay Attention to How You Listen”

HAVE you ever had the experience of being unable to recall the name of the person to whom you were just introduced? When commenting at a meeting, has it ever been brought to your attention that your expression was identical to the one just made? Or, on leaving a meeting, has it ever been the case that you could not recall the names of the speakers or the subjects they were discussing? In all probability you have had one of these or similar experiences. If they are regular occurrences, then it is of utmost importance to your eternal welfare to heed Jesus’ counsel to “pay attention to how you listen.”—Luke 8:18.

On occasions our mind’s inability to register what is said may be made light of, yet actually it is no laughing matter. There was the case of a young engineer who was in a conference discussing the details of an important new plant site for a major client. Suddenly he proposed what he considered a sensible solution to the problem. After a moment of uncomfortable silence the head of the concern laughingly pointed out that the same proposal had been made and rejected a few minutes earlier. The incident caused amusement at the time; months later it was remembered by the young engineer, but not as being humorous. Then the project had been successfully completed and most of the young engineers who had worked on it received promotions, but not the one who had made a fool of himself at the conference because of not ‘paying attention to how he listened.’

Jesus’ instruction to be concerned with how we listen indicates there are improper ways of listening that should be avoided. Such bad listening habits can have serious results, meaning not only the loss of a job or a promotion, but even leading to the loss of our very lives. The faulty listening of people today has caused a number of major industries and more than twenty colleges to set up “listening clinics” to study people’s listening habits and how to improve them.

Such studies have revealed what one’s own experience can tell—our minds often are not concentrating on what is being said. Since our thoughts can race along four to ten times faster than most people speak, we often fail to let our minds dwell on what is being said. Instead we tune our minds out—“I wonder if I turned the stove off before leaving.” “Oh, I must see So-and-So after the meeting”—and by the time we tune back in an important point of instruction may have been missed. How appropriate and to the point is Jesus’ instruction to “pay attention to what you are hearing”!—Mark 4:24.

Paying attention to what you are hearing means more than paying attention to the words being spoken. A poor listener hears just words and fails to get the ideas. He has not learned to look for and pick out the main ideas and to discern the strong arguments and details that go to support these ideas. Of course, a good speaker with a well-ordered outline makes this easier, but a good listener will learn to find the major points and the supporting arguments of even a complicated outline, delivered in an uninteresting, monotonous style. On occasions such a speaker has the more valuable material, and the good listener is the one that will benefit.

In Jesus’ day multitudes listened to him. They marveled at his sayings and enjoyed hearing his speaking. Yet Jesus showed that many were poor listeners when he said: “Though hearing, they may hear and yet not get the sense of it.” A good listener has a good motive for listening. His purpose is to acquire knowledge that he can use in the future, both to benefit himself and those with whom he comes in contact. The majority that heard Jesus did not have this proper motive characteristic of all good listeners. Instead they were like those of Ezekiel’s day, and Jesus was to them “like one with a beautiful voice and playing a stringed instrument well.” They heard his words, but did not do them.—Mark 4:12; Ezek. 33:32.

Jesus’ mother Mary was a good listener, setting a pattern for Christians to follow. When the shepherds found her and the babe Jesus in the manger and told the details of how they were directed there by the angels, the account says that “Mary began to preserve all these sayings, drawing conclusions in her mind.” When still but a child Jesus spoke words of wisdom, and “his mother carefully kept all these sayings in her heart.” A good listener is alert to discern the meaning of what is said. He will meditate and reason on what he has heard and will preserve such sayings for future use.—Luke 2:19, 51.

A major fault in listening, revealed by a study of clinic students, is that many mentally block out ideas that are opposed to strong opinions they already have. Unconsciously they are afraid they might hear something that will make them question their views. The ear has an amazing ability to focus on what it wants to hear, and to block out what it does not want to hear. O the words may enter the ear all right, but they are not allowed to register on the brain.

The days of Noah provide an example. The scripture says that ‘Noah was a preacher of righteousness’; the people heard what he was saying, but “they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away.” (2 Pet. 2:5; Matt. 24:39) They blocked their ears by not letting their minds give consideration to what they were hearing. “They took no note” of what they had heard. It was a message that was opposed to their way of thinking and way of life, and so, as has been found by researchers to be true of people today, they mentally blocked out what they did not want to hear. Such poor listening habits resulted in their everlasting destruction.

Jesus said that, “just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be.” (Matt. 24:37) In this day of Christ’s second presence the vast majority, as in the days of Noah, are not ‘paying attention to how they listen.’ It is a life and death matter! All who love life, when hearing the words of life spoken from God’s Word the Bible, will ‘pay attention to what they are hearing.’ They will ‘pay more than the usual attention to the things heard by them, that they may never drift away.’—Heb. 2:1.

Love Is Merciful—Are You?

HOW far could an automobile travel without oil? Before long, friction generated by parts rubbing against each other would burn out vital segments of the engine. Oil is necessary to eliminate or at least minimize this friction.

In human relationships we need such an agent to eliminate or minimize the frictions generated in everyday life. Such an agent is love. Love, as taught in the Bible, is more than kind words, though these are essential too. Love expresses itself in unselfish acts of conduct. It is positive and active, not negative or inactive. It builds up; it does not tear down. Due to a lack of this love, the entire human race is shredded by the frictions of life. Society is heated to the explosion point by hatred, fear, divisions, strife, insecurity and distress of nations.

LOVE IS MERCIFUL

An integral part of love is the quality of mercy. A dictionary defines mercy this way: “More kindness than justice requires; kindness beyond what can be claimed or expected; kindly treatment; pity.” All of these definitions are expressions of unselfishness; hence, part of love.

To be unmerciful is to be selfish, the opposite of love. Being unmerciful indicates an unwillingness to forgive. It shows a desire to demand beyond what we should demand of others. To lack mercy is to show hatred, not love.

STRAW AND RAFTER

When Jesus was on earth, he frequently used illustrations, or parables, to teach his hearers in a forceful way the necessity of love and mercy. He knew that people had a tendency to push these aside. He saw how quickly some criticized others while ignoring their own shortcomings. He also noticed that those who were quick to condemn often had faults far more serious than the ones they were finding in others. What language could he use, then, to impress deeply on others the folly of this unloving, merciless course of action?

Jesus had the exact words for this problem in human behavior. He used a word-picture, an illustration, that made an impression on his audience. It was one that they would not soon forget. As recorded at Matthew 7:3-5, he said: “Why, then, do you look at the straw in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the rafter in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother: ‘Allow me to extract the straw from your eye’; when, look! a rafter is in your own eye? Hypocrite! first extract the rafter from your own eye, and then you will see clearly how to extract the straw from your brother’s eye.”

Jesus used this exaggeration to drive home the point. It would be ridiculous for someone who had a rafterlike fault in his own personality to complain about a tiny, strawlike flaw in another’s personality and condemn him for it. The faultfinder should be concerned about this huge plank or timber, this rafter that would be so obvious to others, but which he was ignoring to pick at minor faults in someone else.

Christians are to counsel one another lovingly so all can be molded and fashioned into Christlike individuals. However, one who undertakes to reprove every defect in another, while his own spirit and conduct are wrong, proves himself a hypocrite. As the apostle Paul stated: “Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are, if you judge; for in the thing in which you judge another, you condemn yourself, inasmuch as you that judge practice the same things.” (Rom. 2:1) A wise reprover should begin at home and check matters he may be guilty of that could be as bad or even worse than those he observes in others. Jesus’ illustration demonstrated that our counsel should always be tempered with love, realizing that everyone, including ourselves, misses the mark of perfection in some way.

One reason some unlovingly criticize others quickly is that they desire to avoid looking at their own failures. To build up his ego, a person will tear down others, thereby suggesting that he would not be like the one he is criticizing; hence, that he is superior to that one. Acid criticism thus draws attention away from his own faults. An example of this was the Pharisees in Jesus’ day. They harped on the failure of others in some strawlike point of the Law, while they themselves were guilty of far more serious offenses. Concerning these unloving, self-righteous Pharisees, Jesus said: “They say but do not perform. They bind up heavy loads and put them upon the shoulders of mankind, but they themselves are not willing to budge them with their finger. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you give the tenth of the mint and the dill and the cummin, but you have disregarded the weightier matters of the Law, namely, judgment and mercy and faithfulness.”—Matt. 23:3, 4, 23.

The rafter in their eyes was their lack of love, mercy, justice and faithfulness. Yet they saw fit to criticize those whose faults were tiny straws in comparison! This is just like the world we live in today. Do not nations, races, political parties, marriage mates, yes, people in all walks of life find it easy to condemn others in an unloving manner while having the same or more glaring shortcomings themselves?

Being unmerciful toward others means that one does not recognize, or else is ignoring, a great fundamental truth. What is that?

COMMON ANCESTRY

Every person on earth is a descendant of Adam. What significance does this have? Romans 5:12 states: “Through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned.” Everyone on earth is born in imperfection! No one is capable of perfect actions and thoughts. All tend toward wrongdoing because of inheriting sin and imperfection from Adam. We should not demand perfection in others, since we cannot possibly produce it ourselves. This does not mean that grievous sins are to be ignored. For serious violations of Scriptural principles, Jesus plainly laid out the procedure to follow, and it is recorded at Matthew chapter 18, verses 15 to 17.

Remember, mercy is “more kindness than justice requires.” We may be quick to demand revenge or perfect justice when someone irritates us or wrongs us. However, what would happen if Jehovah God were to demand perfect justice? Since Adam sinned as a free moral agent and chose to have offspring that were not the responsibility of God, would not perfect justice require that all of us die without any hope of everlasting life? We are all born in sin and therefore fall short of the mark of perfection. We do not have the right to life.

Therefore, we can be thankful that, as 1 John 4:16 states: “God is love.” Because of this love, Jehovah moderates justice with mercy, providing his Son as a ransom sacrifice so believers might get life. Tenderly and compassionately, like a forgiving father, Jehovah overlooks our tendency toward wrongdoing if we imitate his love and do his will. “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of tender mercies and the God of all comfort.”—2 Cor. 1:3.

If we appreciate God’s love and mercy toward us, we must extend it to others. On the other hand, if we, after having been extended mercy by Jehovah, do not, in turn, extend mercy to others, but pick at the ‘straw in our brother’s eye,’ while ignoring the huge, rafterlike one in our own eye, would it not be just of God to withdraw his mercy from us? Jesus showed this would be the case: “For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; whereas if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.”—Matt. 6:14, 15.

THE SINFUL WOMAN

One day Jesus was dining with a Pharisee. The occasion provided another opportunity for him to point out the need for receiving and extending mercy and forgiveness. The account relates: “And, look! a woman who was known in the city to be a sinner, learned that he was taking a meal in the house of the Pharisee, and she brought an alabaster case of perfumed oil, and, taking a position behind at his feet, she wept and started to wet his feet with her tears and she would wipe them off with the hair of her head. Also she tenderly kissed his feet and oiled them with the perfumed oil. At the sight the Pharisee that invited him said within himself: ‘This man, if he were a prophet, would know who and what kind of woman it is that is touching him, that she is a sinner.’”—Luke 7:37-39.

This Pharisee considered the sinful woman beneath him, reasoning that Jesus should have reacted similarly. Jesus knew his hypocritical thoughts. “In reply Jesus said to him: ‘Simon, I have something to say to you.’ He said: ‘Teacher, say it!’ ‘Two men were debtors to a certain lender; the one was in debt for five hundred denarii, but the other for fifty. When they did not have anything with which to pay back, he freely forgave them both. Therefore, which of them will love him the more?’ In answer Simon said: ‘I suppose it is the one to whom he freely forgave the more.’ He said to him: ‘You judged correctly.’ With that he turned to the woman and said to Simon: ‘Do you behold this woman? I entered into your house; you gave me no water for my feet. But this woman wet my feet with her tears and wiped them off with her hair. You gave me no kiss; but this woman, from the hour that I came in, did not leave off tenderly kissing my feet. You did not oil my head with oil; but this woman oiled my feet with perfumed oil. By virtue of this, I tell you, her sins, great though they are, are forgiven, because she did an act of great love; but he who is forgiven little, loves little.’”—Luke 7:40-47.

The pious Pharisee was the loser. In his unmerciful way he considered the sinful woman beneath his dignity and unworthy of his attention. At the same time, he did not honor Jesus. The sinful woman did. It is not that she had been a worse sinner than the Pharisee, though others thought so. Probably the opposite was true, as Jesus made clear concerning the Pharisees on other occasions. It was that she recognized the need for mercy and forgiveness. She realized more truly and deeply the reality of her sin. She also appreciated the necessity of showing love by her deeds. The Pharisee did not feel the need for any of these things. He thought he was righteous and did not need to repent. Because of this he did not feel he had to perform such loving acts as the woman did. His love for Christ was not as great. By his not extending mercy and love to other sinners, his sins proved to be greater. Jesus told the woman: “Your faith has saved you; go your way in peace.” There is no record that Jesus told the Pharisee that his faith had saved him.—Luke 7:50.

WHAT YOU SHOULD DO

The loveless world today is like the Pharisees. Its cold, merciless course has shattered the lives of billions of people. It has sown hate. It cannot reap love. Shortly, Jehovah will withdraw the mercy he has extended to it for over 4,000 years, since the flood of Noah’s day. At the universal war of Armageddon he will execute in righteousness the loveless and merciless ones. That will be a period of unequaled trouble for this friction-filled world. Those who have proved their love by being merciful and forgiving will be spared and ushered into a new world, where, under God’s loving hand, men will be gradually brought back to perfection.

All righteously disposed persons should desire this paradise restored. Do you? If you do and want to receive God’s favor and be mercifully protected through the coming world crisis, you should cultivate love by learning how to be merciful to your fellow man. Do not be concerned if he does not respond to your loving acts. If others continue unloving and are unmerciful in spite of your love, they are the losers. They will have to answer to Jehovah, but you have pleased God by continuing to show love and mercy.

There will be those who do appreciate your love and mercy and who will come to an understanding of God’s purposes, as did the sinful woman. Jude 22, 23 says: “Also continue showing mercy to some that have doubts; save them by snatching them out of the fire. But continue showing mercy to others, doing so with fear, while you hate even the inner garment that has been stained by the flesh.”

Happiness now and everlasting life in God’s new world are the benefits of a loving and merciful course of life. Jesus said: “Happy are the merciful, since they will be shown mercy.” If you want everlasting life on God’s paradise earth, be stingy with criticism, but abundant with love; be miserly with faultfinding, but lavish with mercy. By doing this you will imitate God, for “Jehovah is merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abundant in loving-kindness.”—Matt. 5:7; Ps. 103:8.

Disasters—A Sign of the Times

The 1950’s has been called the decade of disasters in America. As a result of disasters such as hurricanes, floods, tornadoes and fires, etc., 29,000 homes were destroyed, while 600,000 more were damaged, making 1,600,000 persons homeless. No wonder the American Red Cross called the 1950’s the most disastrous decade in the nation’s history.

Married Believers Called to Peace and Salvation

“A brother or a sister is not in servitude under such circumstances, but God has called you to peace.”—1 Cor. 7:15.

1. Because it was not good for Adam to be by himself, what was marriage meant to be for man?

MARRIAGE, when first introduced to man, was meant to be a peaceable arrangement. It was meant to be for a man’s happiness and good, because the fatherly Creator of the first man, Adam, saw that it was not good for the man to continue by himself.

2. How did marriage start off favorably for Adam and Eve, and how could it have continued peacefully and happily?

² Everything was designed to make marriage peaceful and harmonious. The one to whom the man was married was a feminine creature made in perfection to be a helper for man, as a complement of him. She was most intimately a part of him, for she was in reality bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh, as the man himself said. Very importantly, the man and his wife were of the same religious faith; they were both children of Jehovah God, having communion with him and worshiping him. They had their heavenly Father’s blessing and were plainly told what they had to do together in their Paradise home. Their duties were not in conflict; they had a common purpose to fulfill according to God’s will, and this called for peaceful cooperation. They had the capacity to love each other; they just naturally loved each other. Above all, they must have loved their God and Father, although they could not see him. By loving obedience to God’s will, their marriage that had started off so favorably could have continued peacefully and happily.—Gen. 1:26 to 2:25.

3. The forbidding to marry shows a falling away from what, and how does the case of Christ’s apostles show whether the Bible forbids Christians of any rank to marry?

³ The Christian apostle Paul, a marriage authority for believers, wrote many important things about marriage. To the overseer or superintendent of a Christian congregation Paul wrote: “The inspired utterance says definitely that in later periods of time some will fall away from the faith, . . . forbidding to marry.” (1 Tim. 4:1-3) However, the Holy Scriptures themselves do not forbid marriage, even to the twelve foundations of the Christian congregation, the twelve apostles. After night-long prayer to God, Jesus chose his twelve apostles, and among them he included Simon, whom Jesus called Peter or Cephas. At that time Peter or Cephas was a married man, with a mother-in-law, whom Jesus healed of a bodily ailment. (Luke 6:12-16; John 1:42; Matt. 8:14, 15) In defending the right of an apostle to marry a sister in the faith, Paul wrote: “Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? . . . My defense to those who examine me is as follows: We have authority to eat and drink, do we not? We have authority to lead about a sister as a wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas, do we not?” (1 Cor. 9:1-5) God’s Word says Yes.

4. How do Paul’s instructions to Timothy and Titus show whether so-called “bishops” and “deacons” and “priests” may get Scripturally married?

⁴ Paul wrote Timothy and Titus that those whom Christendom calls “bishops” and “deacons” and “priests” may get married. To quote Titus 1:5-7 from the Roman Catholic Douay Version Bible: “Thou shouldest . . . ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee: if any be without crime, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be without crime, as the steward of God.” Also 1 Timothy 3:2-4, 12 (Dy) reads: “It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, . . . one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all chastity. Let deacons be the husbands of one wife: who rule well their children and their own houses.”

5. The expression “the husband of one wife” is taken by some Bible translators and commentators to mean what, and thus who might be debarred from holding office in a congregation?

⁵ Note the repeated qualification, “the husband of one wife.” Some Bible translators and commentators take this to mean “married only once,” not married more than once, so excluding remarried divorcees and remarried widowers. But the Jewish translator H. J. Schonfield renders 1 Timothy 3:12: “Let administrators [deacons] remain married to one wife, managing their children and their own households well.” And the Aramaic translator G. M. Lamsa renders the same verse: “Let the deacons be appointed from those who have not been polygamous, ruling their children and their own households well.” The Roman Catholic monsignor R. A. Knox renders the crucial expression as “faithful to one wife,” and makes the following footnote comment on this expression: “‘Faithful to one wife’ may mean, but does not necessarily mean, that in the discipline of the early Church a remarried widower was ineligible for the episcopate.”

6. Why was this qualification fitting in apostolic times?

⁶ Basically the Greek expression for “husband of one wife” means the husband of one living wife. In apostolic times polygamy was practiced among non-Christians, and even among the Hebrews or Jews (from among whom the first members of the Christian congregation were taken) there were notable cases of polygamy.

7. What notable examples of polygamy do we have in Israel and in Africa, and what standard of marriage is for Christians in the new covenant of God with his people?

⁷ No polygamous man could become a congregational supervisor or overseer, or a ministerial servant to such an overseer. No polygamous person could even become a Christian and as such a member of the dedicated, baptized Christian congregation. Under the Mosaic law covenant that God made with the Jews, polygamy was permitted but was strictly regulated in the pre-Christian nation of Israel. The most outstanding case of polygamy in all Israel’s history was that of King Solomon of Jerusalem. He had seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines, but at last he suffered religious downfall for this. (1 Ki. 11:3) Solomon’s case of polygamous marriages has been surpassed by that of two chieftains in Africa this past century. The two, the chieftain of Loango (in what is now the Congo Republic) and the chieftain of Mutesa, in Uganda, had about 7,000 wives each. (New York Times Magazine, April 24, 1960, page 114) However, by means of Christ’s sacrificial death the Mosaic law covenant with Israel was abolished; and by means of Jesus Christ as Mediator, Jehovah God established a new covenant with the congregation of Christ’s followers. Under this new covenant no bigamy or polygamy is permitted in the dedicated, baptized Christian congregation. The paradisaic model of the first man and his one wife has been restored. In this, congregation overseers must be examples.

8. What would a polygamous man have to do in order to become a baptized member of the New World society?

⁸ How could a polygamous person become a dedicated, baptized Christian and then associate with the New World society of Jehovah’s witnesses? By giving up all his marriage mates except one. Nonetheless, he might be obliged to make provision afterward for his released mates and his children by them; but he could no longer have sexual relations with them as wives or as concubines. He must recognize only one mate as his true wife and give her exclusively the marriage due.

9. To survive Armageddon into God’s new world, what must a polygamist do, and where are many believers meeting this test?

⁹ This puts quite a test upon a polygamist who enjoys the Bible message of the new world of righteousness in which God’s kingdom will allow only one-wife marriage on the Paradise earth. But the polygamist has to meet this test if he wants to survive God’s coming universal war of Armageddon and enter alive into the “new earth” under the “new heavens,” God’s kingdom by Christ. Such a test explains why Mohammedanism is reported making a greater spread in Africa than Christendom’s religion. Mohammedanism allows polygamy up to a certain extent; and therefore one of Christendom’s evangelists recently back from a preaching tour in Africa said: “For every three converts to Christianity there are seven to Islam.” (New York Times, March 30, 1960) However, even though it means giving up polygamy in numerous cases, many thousands of native Africans are becoming dedicated, baptized witnesses of Jehovah every year.

10. What expressed desire and instruction of Paul proves that remarriage was not forbidden to widowed Christians?

¹⁰ Now as to having one living marriage mate, it is plain that Christ and his apostles did not forbid remarriage by widowed Christians. Concerning the younger widows whose sexual impulses were asserting themselves, Paul said to overseer Timothy: “I desire the younger widows to marry, to bear children.” (1 Tim. 5:14) It was better to remarry than to fornicate during a seizure of passion. Accordingly, Paul further said: “Now I say to the single persons and the widows, it is well for them that they remain even as I am. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry, for it is better to marry than to be inflamed with passion.”—1 Cor. 7:8, 9.

11. Why would remarriage serve well for young widows, and why would a remarried widower not be unfit to be an overseer?

¹¹ Marriage would thus prevent their being distracted from serving God efficiently; it would safeguard them from misconduct that furnished “inducement to the opposer to revile” the Christian congregation, to which the passionate widows belonged. What would be allowed to widows would justly be allowed to widowers. There is no immorality in this; for Paul explains: “While her husband is living, [a woman] would be styled an adulteress if she became another man’s. But if her husband dies, she is free from his law, so that she is not an adulteress if she becomes another man’s.” (Rom. 7:3) Hence, why would a remarried widower be unfit to be an overseer?

DIGNIFIED RESPONSIBILITIES

12. When Paul said to remain in the certain condition in which one was called, was he referring to staying single, or to what in general, and why?

¹² The foregoing must be taken into account when we read Paul’s words: “In whatever condition each one was called, brothers, let him remain in it associated with God.” (1 Cor. 7:24) Paul did not mean that a person who is called when yet a single person or a widowed person must remain unmarried. Paul says it would be better for them as Christians to remain unmarried; but certain conditions or developments may make marriage advisable for them, for moral reasons. So Paul was really referring to certain unalterable conditions, stations or callings in which believers were when God called them to become Christ’s followers. If God himself ignored such unchangeable features about a believer, then the believer did not need to worry about staying in such a condition. If, by God’s choice, he began being a Christian in that condition, station or calling, then he could keep on being a Christian therein.

13. What specific stations, conditions or callings does Paul mention in 1 Corinthians 7:17-23?

¹³ To make that clear, Paul says: “Only, as Jehovah has given each one a portion, let each one so walk as God has called him. And thus I ordain in all the congregations. Was any man called circumcised [because of being a Jew, Samaritan, proselyte or an Egyptian]? Let him not become uncircumcised. Has any man been called in uncircumcision? Let him not get circumcised. Circumcision does not mean a thing, and uncircumcision means not a thing, but observance of God’s commandments does. In whatever state [or, calling] each one was called, let him remain in it. Were you called a slave? Do not let it worry you; but if you can also become free, rather seize the opportunity. For anyone in the Lord that was called a slave is the Lord’s freedman: likewise he that was called a free man is a slave of Christ. You were bought with a price; stop becoming slaves of men.”—1 Cor. 7:17-23; marginal reading.

14. In 1 Corinthians 7:25-28, what did Paul say to those married and to those not yet married?

¹⁴ But, Paul, what about persons called when they are married or never yet married? “Now concerning virgins I have no command from the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who had mercy shown him by the Lord to be faithful [and who would therefore be merciful and also faithful in giving his opinion]. Therefore I think this to be well in view of the necessity here with us, that it is well for a man to continue as he is [as regards marriage]. Are you bound to a wife? Stop seeking a release. Are you loosed from a wife? Stop seeking a wife. But even if you did marry, you would commit no sin. And if a virgin married, such one would commit no sin. However, those who do will have tribulation in their flesh.”—1 Cor. 7:25-28.

15. To what extent does marriage solve one’s problems?

¹⁵ There is no sin in marrying honorably, and there may be an avoiding of fornication by it. Yet there is ‘tribulation in the flesh’ connected with it “in view of the necessity here with us,” outside the Paradise of Eden. Marriage does not solve all one’s problems. While it solves one problem, it creates more at present.

16. As to the expression “in whatever condition each one was called,” why does or does not this refer to one’s unmarried state or to one’s living an immoral or unjust life?

¹⁶ A man can change his virgin or unmarried state without changing his condition, station or calling as a person circumcised or one uncircumcised, as a slave or a free man, but remaining in it. The calling by God is what determines whether one may remain in the station or calling in which he is at the time. Note that Paul says: “In whatever condition each one was called, brothers, let him remain in it associated with God.” (1 Cor. 7:24) He does not say, In whatever condition each one was when the truth or Kingdom news found him, let him remain in it. Otherwise, if the truth was first presented to one when a prostitute or an oppressive publican (tax collector) or living in consensual marriage or in common-law marriage, then the individual would be authorized to remain in that situation and at the same time profess true Christianity.

17. How did Paul explain Jesus’ words that tax collectors and harlots would go into God’s kingdom ahead of religious priests and elders?

¹⁷ It is true that Jesus told the chief priests and religious elders at Jerusalem: “The tax collectors and the harlots are going ahead of you into the kingdom of God.” But they did not go into the Kingdom as greedy, extortionate tax collectors or as harlots; for Paul says: “Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God’s kingdom. And yet that is what some of you were. But you have been washed clean, but you have been sanctified, but you have been declared righteous in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God.” (1 Cor. 6:9-11) No, those harlots and tax collectors had to clean up first and dedicate themselves to God through Christ and then get baptized, before ever God would call them.

18. As indicated by Jesus’ words concerning John the Baptist, does God call harlots and tax collectors, and on what conditions today do the immoral have an opportunity to be called?

¹⁸ That is why Jesus added: “For John came to you in the path of righteousness, but you did not believe him. However, the tax collectors and the harlots believed him, and you although you saw this, did not feel regret afterwards so as to believe him.” (Matt. 21:31, 32) God does not call harlots and tax collectors and suchlike; but he has called those who formerly were such but did not remain such. So those today living in fornication, adultery, consensual marriage or common-law marriage must first discontinue such or must get legally married. Then they could make an acceptable dedication to God, be baptized and be called into his ministry.

19. As regards independence and headship, into what state does a woman marry?

¹⁹ By marriage one undertakes serious limitations and obligations. These responsibilities must be treated with dignity. When a woman marries, she marries into a state of independence of her parents but also marries into a state of subordination, this to her husband. She comes under a headship, that of her husband.

20. To be a Christian wife, what does a woman marrying have to recognize, as emphasized by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:3, 7-12?

²⁰ This is something she should consider before marrying, rather than rebel against it after she is married. She should not try to ignore or be indifferent to headship. “I want you to know,” says the apostle Paul, “that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn, the head of a woman is the man; in turn, the head of the Christ is God.” And God has no head over him. This is why, on certain occasions, under certain situations, and when performing certain functions, a woman should have upon her head some sort of covering as a sign of being under authority by man. “For a man ought not to have his head veiled, as he is God’s image and glory; but the woman is man’s glory. For man is not out of woman [man being created first], but woman out of man; and, what is more, man was not created for the sake of the woman, but woman for the sake of the man. That is why the woman ought to have a sign of authority upon her head because of the angels. . . . the woman is out of the man.” (1 Cor. 11:3, 7-12) So, if a girl does not want the headship of a man other than her father, she should not get married. To be a Christian wife, she has to recognize husbandly headship.

21. Why do the Hebrew Scriptures refer to a wife as “beulah” and to a husband as “baal”?

²¹ According to the Bible, a wife is her husband’s property, particularly in the case where a bride price is paid for her. That is why a married woman is Scripturally called “beulah,” this word really meaning “owned” as a wife. The masculine form of this word is “baal,” which even today in modern Israel is the Hebrew word for “husband.” The title really means “owner, master, lord.”

22. What Scripture instances are given speaking of the husband as the owner and the wife as the owned woman?

²² Thus Deuteronomy 22:22 speaks of a “woman owned [beulah] by an owner [baal].” Proverbs 30:23 speaks of a “woman when she is taken possession of as a wife.” Exodus 21:3 speaks of the “owner [baal] of a wife.” To the ancient nation of Israel Jehovah said: “I myself have become the husbandly owner [baal] of you people.” (Jer. 3:14) To his symbolic “woman,” the mother of the promised Messianic Seed, Jehovah says: “You yourself will be called My Delight Is in Her, and your land Owned as a Wife [Beulah]. For Jehovah will have taken delight in you, and your own land will be owned as a wife. For just as a; young man takes ownership [baal] of a virgin as his wife, your sons will take ownership [baal] of you as a wife.” (Isa. 62:4, 5) For this reason Boaz, David’s great-grandfather, said before witnesses in Bethlehem: “Ruth . . . I do buy for myself as a wife.”—Ruth 4:10; see also Exodus 20:17

23. Under what new law does a woman marrying come, as shown by Paul?

²³ A woman marrying comes under a new law. What law, or whose law? The apostolic answer is this: “A married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is alive; but if her husband dies, she is discharged from the law of her husband. . . . But if her husband dies, she is free from his law.” (Rom. 7:2, 3) In harmony with this arrangement the same apostolic authority commands: “Be in subjection to one another in fear of Christ. Let wives be in subjection to their husbands as to the Lord, because a husband is head of his wife as the Christ also is head of the congregation, he being a savior of this body. In fact, as the congregation is in subjection to the Christ, so let wives also be to their husbands in everything. . . . the wife should have deep respect for her husband.”—Eph. 5:21-24, 33.

24. Why does this rule of wifely subjection to a husband apply in spite of their being neither female nor male in the matter of union with Christ?

²⁴ Wives should do this in fear of Christ. That theocratic rule applies alongside this marvelous truth: “All of you who were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor freeman, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in union with Christ Jesus. Moreover, if you belong to Christ, you are really Abraham’s seed, heirs with reference to a promise.” (Gal. 3:26-29) Their all being alike is with regard to the new developed personality: “Clothe yourselves with the new personality . . . where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, foreigner, Scythian, slave, freeman, but Christ is all things and in all.” Because this does not wipe out the marriage relationship and the correct adjustment of the wife to the husband, Paul later adds: “You wives, be in subjection to your husbands, as it is becoming in the Lord.”—Col. 3:10, 11, 18.

PROPER EXERCISE OF HEADSHIP

25. In view of a husband’s headship and law, how does a Christian woman marrying safeguard herself spiritually, and why so?

²⁵ If a dedicated, baptized Christian woman is wise and theocratic and lines up with the apostle’s instruction to marry “only in the Lord,” then she safeguards her spiritual interests. She makes it easier for herself as a wife, because she is marrying a man “in union with the Lord,” a man who is under orders to maintain his husbandly ownership and exercise his headship and law according to the Christian “new personality.” He does have the ownership of her, but as a Christian he may not abuse or misuse this Christian property, as it also belongs to Christ who bought her with the price of his perfect human life. Because of this she is a fellow heir with her husband of the promise of everlasting life in God’s new world. So her husband would do gross wrong in preventing or hindering her from gaining that precious inheritance, crushing out her future eternal life, as it were.

26. Peter says to husbands to assign honor to wives as to what kind of vessel, and therefore what kind of consideration would a Christian husband give a wife?

²⁶ Says the married apostle Peter (Cephas) to Christian men concerning their wives: “You husbands, continue dwelling in like manner with them according to knowledge, assigning them honor as to a weaker vessel, the feminine one, since you are also heirs with them of the undeserved favor of life, in order for your prayers not to be hindered. Finally, all of you be like-minded, showing fellow feeling, exercising brotherly love, tenderly affectionate, humble in mind.” (1 Pet. 3:7, 8) If a husband honors his wife as a physically weaker vessel because of being a feminine vessel, he will handle her with care and tenderness, that she may be of continuous valuable usefulness to him. He will not want to crack her or break her to pieces and destroy her precious helpfulness to him. He will try to preserve her life, not just her present life in this world but, more importantly, her inheritance of life in the future new world of righteousness. He will pray with her and for her.

27. In his exercise of household headship, how will a Christian husband deal with his wife since he is “God’s image and glory” and she is “man’s glory”?

²⁷ The Christian husband will keep his wife like-minded with him in Bible knowledge and understanding and in practical wisdom. He will show her fellow feeling. While exercising the headship in the household, he will not become heady but keep “humble in mind.” As the man must not have his head veiled because “he is God’s image and glory,” he will be careful to exercise his headship as God does His, in a way to image God in this headship and to glorify God thus, toward his wife. As the “woman is man’s glory,” the husband will avoid reducing her to an inglorious state, where she will be no credit or glory to him, not reflecting what a fine, godly husband he is to her both at home and in the congregation. If he is a congregation overseer or a ministerial servant, he will specially want her to be a spiritual “glory” in reflection of him.

28, 29. (a) As respects his wife, how does a Christian endeavor to be a glory to the one who is his spiritual Head? (b) In Ephesians 5:25-33, how does Paul stimulate believers to treat wives in a way helpful to salvation?

²⁸ “The head of every man is the Christ,” and the husband is fearful lest he ‘shame the one who is his head.’ (1 Cor. 11:3, 4) He will therefore endeavor to be a glory to the one who is his spiritual Head. As a husband he can do this by treating his wife, particularly his dedicated, baptized wife, in the same way in which Jesus Christ treats the congregation as his espoused virgin. The apostle Paul uses this comparison to stimulate believing men to treat their wives in a way that helps to salvation, saying:

²⁹ “Husbands, continue loving your wives, just as the Christ also loved the congregation and delivered up himself for it, that he might sanctify it, cleansing it with the bath of water by means of the word, that he might present the congregation to himself in its splendor, not having a spot or a wrinkle or any of such things, but that it should be holy and without blemish. In this way husbands ought to be loving their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself, for no man ever hated his own flesh, but he feeds and cherishes it, as the Christ also does the congregation, because we are members of his body. ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh.’ This sacred secret is great. Now I am speaking with respect to Christ and the congregation. Nevertheless, also, let each one of you individually so love his wife as he does himself.”—Eph. 5:25-33.

BEARING AN UNEQUAL YOKE

30. How should a husband and a wife render the marriage due, and what did Paul by way of concession say to married believers in this regard?

³⁰ Where the husband faithfully and loyally loves his wife in a Christian way and his wife, in turn, displays deep respect for her husband, it produces peace, harmony and happiness in the home. In a dignified, honorable, wholesome way they will lovingly render to each other the marriage due, as being one flesh. “Let the husband render to his wife her due; but let the wife also do likewise to her husband. The wife does not exercise authority over her own body, but her husband does; likewise, also, the husband does not exercise authority over his own body, but his wife does. Do not be depriving each other of it [the due], except by mutual consent for an appointed time, that you may devote time to prayer and may come together again, that Satan may not keep tempting you for your lack of self-regulation. However, I say this by way of concession, not in the way of an order.” (1 Cor. 7:3-6) Paul said that by way of concession because fornication was prevalent in that pagan world.

31. Instead of separating, what should married Christians strive to do, but during any agreed-to living apart how should each one conduct individual living?

³¹ Dedicated, baptized married couples should seriously strive to stick together, with one heart, one mind and one objective. “To the married people I give instructions,” continues Paul, “yet not I but the Lord, that a wife should not depart from her husband; but if she should actually depart, let her remain single or else make up again with her husband; and a husband should not leave his wife.” The departing wife, though she dwells apart, must remember this divine law: “A wife is bound during all the time her husband is alive. But if her husband should fall asleep in death, she is free to be married to whom she wants, only in the Lord.” (1 Cor. 7:10, 11, 39) Bound by her husband’s law, she will not feel free to carry on with the opposite sex as an unmarried woman might or does, thus endangering her moral cleanness. If her better judgment prevails, she will seek reasons and ways to make peace with her living husband and get back to him. She will be careful not to conduct herself in such a loose or immoral way during her separateness from him that he would be filled with disgust and not be eager, yes, yearning, to have her back again, with no grounds for reproaching her or being suspicious of her. The like rule applies, in turn, to the husband who leaves his wife without legal divorce.

32. What higher thing should separated Christian couples remember that they represent, and hence from what course should they refrain?

³² In this respect, both separated mates should remember that they represent something higher, grander and more important than their marriage union. This thing is the Christian congregation with which they are associated and in which they are obligated to be active ministers of God’s Word. Hence they ought to shrink back aghast from any course that would furnish basis for the mud of reproach and reviling to be slung at God’s honorable organization.

33, 34. (a) Where a couple are unequally yoked religiously, must the believer leave the unbeliever? (b) What must the believer remember as to the effect of his accepting the truth and dedicating himself?

³³ However, what about where a couple are in an unequal yoke religiously, where one is a dedicated, baptized believer, an ordained minister of Jehovah God, and the other is an unbeliever toward the New World society of Jehovah’s witnesses because of being an atheist or holding some other religious profession? Such religious inequality could ordinarily be expected to produce discord.

³⁴ In the pursuit of peace, must the believer leave the unbeliever? Not necessarily. Neither is the believer automatically free to abandon the unbeliever. We must keep in mind that when one adopts the truth and becomes a believer by dedicating oneself to God and getting baptized, this does not annul or break the previous marriage bond. One’s believing and adopting the Kingdom truth may cause a division in the home, just as Jesus Christ foretold in Matthew 10:34-36. But that does not mean breaking up the marriage. Jesus is no marriage wrecker. The wise and optimistic way to handle an unequal yoke is set out for the believer by Paul:

35. What wise and optimistic way does Paul set out for handling the case of an unequal yoke?

³⁵ “To the others [other married people] I say, yes, I, not the Lord: If any brother has an unbelieving wife, and yet she is agreeable to dwelling with him, let him not leave her; and a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and yet he is agreeable to dwelling with her, let her not leave her husband. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in relation to his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in relation to the brother; otherwise, your children would really be unclean, but now they are holy. But if the unbelieving one proceeds to depart, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not in servitude under such circumstances, but God has called you to peace. For, wife, how do you know but that you will save your husband? Or, husband, how do you know but that you will save your wife?”—1 Cor. 7:12-16.

36. Because of the effect of the truth upon the marriage mate, what should the unbeliever rather want to do?

³⁶ Except as regards his religion or belief, a dedicated, baptized worshiper of God should give his unbelieving wife no occasion for wanting to depart from him. Because of the bettering effect of her husband’s belief upon him, she should see all the more reason for being agreeable to dwelling with him the same as before he became an ordained minister of God. The parallel thing should be true in the case of a believing wife and her unbelieving husband.

37. How did Timothy’s mother Eunice show respect for her pagan husband, and yet how did she discharge her religious obligation to their son?

³⁷ Take the case of the Jewish wife Eunice and her Greek pagan husband. They had a son named Timothy. In course of time, about A.D. 44, the apostle Paul and Barnabas preached in their city, and Eunice and her mother Lois believed and became Christians. Did Eunice now leave her Greek husband because he remained pagan? No; for he was still agreeable to dwelling with her. Eunice was submissive to him; and because he objected, she even had not had their son Timothy circumcised. Whether his father took Timothy to pagan temples of worship, it is not recorded. But Timothy’s mother Eunice and his grandmother Lois saw to it that he got the Biblical religious education, for they taught him themselves at home. Thus from infancy Timothy the half-Jew knew the holy writings that were able to make him wise for salvation through faith in the Messiah. (2 Tim. 3:14, 15; 1:5; Acts 14:4-18) This home religious education of Timothy prevailed over any pagan influence of his Greek father. So when Paul came to town the first time Timothy joined his Jewish mother and grandmother in becoming a Christian. Hence Paul could speak of Timothy as “a genuine child in the faith,” “a beloved child.”—1 Tim. 1:1, 2; 2 Tim. 1:1, 2.

38. What was the attitude of Eunice toward a missionary career for Timothy, and why was first then circumcision practiced upon Timothy?

³⁸ On Paul’s return visit to the city, he found Timothy to be a “disciple . . . well reported on by the brothers in Lystra and Iconium.” Timothy’s mother Eunice, of course, was agreeable and his pagan father did not stand in the way of a missionary career for their son; and so Paul arranged to take Timothy along with him and Silas. In order to remove a stumbling block from before Jews in that neighborhood to whom they might preach, Paul circumcised Timothy, who was now a young man; “for one and all knew that his father was a Greek.” (Acts 16:1-3) Whether Eunice, his mother, ever won her pagan Greek husband over to Christianity by continuing to dwell with him as long as it was agreeable to him, we do not know. However, shortly before his martyrdom Paul wrote Timothy a last letter and spoke of the faith that dwelt in his mother Eunice.—2 Tim. 1:5.

39. To what particular Christian women is Eunice an example, and how does the believer treat the unbelieving mate as relatively sanctified and any children as holy?

³⁹ So Eunice is an example to those dedicated Christian believers who are married to a pagan or a person of a different religious system. The choice of the unbelieving mate to keep on dwelling with a dedicated Christian witness of Jehovah offers a splendid opportunity to the believer, namely, to try in the closest neighborhood to “save” the marriage mate. The believer therefore has to take a positive course, namely, to treat the unbelieving mate as “sanctified in relation” to the believer. That means that the believer has to do everything to the unbelieving mate as if to the Lord himself. The Lord God is a sanctified Person. (Eph. 6:7; Col. 3:22-24) Also, any minor, dependent children to the marriage are now to be considered as “holy” and hence to be treated as clean. The believer will follow Eunice’s example and endeavor to give such “holy” children Bible instruction, that they may continue holy and possibly at last make a personal dedication of themselves to God through Christ. Not only their salvation but also that of the unbelieving marriage mate is at stake. So it is opportune to dwell with him.

40, 41. (a) In case the unbelieving mate is hard to please, what should be the believer’s course? (b) How does Peter counsel unequally yoked Christian wives in harmony with that principle?

⁴⁰ Even if the marriage mate is opposed and hard to please, the believer should not feel obliged to depart. The believer should endure the persecution and opposition, just as he puts up with the persecution and opposition in the territory to which he preaches from house to house. By this course the salvation of the unbelieving mate is possible. This is the argument of the apostle Peter in writing to persecuted Christians. Peter says:

⁴¹ “Let house servants be in subjection to their owners with the full measure of fear, not only to the good and reasonable, but also to those difficult to please. . . . if, when you are doing good and you suffer, you endure it, this is a thing agreeable with God. In fact, to this course [of suffering unjustly] you were called, because even Christ suffered for you, leaving you a model for you to follow his steps closely. . . . In like manner, you wives, be in subjection to your own husbands [baals, Hebrew Bible], in order that, if any are not obedient to the word, they may be won without a word through the conduct of their wives, because of having been eyewitnesses of your chaste conduct together with deep respect [toward your husbands]. And do not let your adornment be that of the external braiding of the hair and of the putting on of gold ornaments or the wearing of outer garments [which outward adornment will not win husbands who are not yet obedient to God’s Word], but let [your adornment] be the secret person of the heart in the incorruptible apparel of the quiet and mild spirit, which is of great value in the eyes of God. For so, too, formerly the holy women who were hoping in God used to adorn themselves, subjecting themselves to their own husbands, as Sarah used to obey Abraham, calling him ‘lord’. And you [wives] have become her children, provided you keep on doing good and not fearing any cause for terror [toward your husbands].”—1 Pet. 2:18 to 3:6.

Separation and Divorce for the Sake of Peace

1. If, in spite of all, the unbeliever chooses to leave and live separate, what should the believing mate do about it?

THERE are innumerable cases of where dedicated, baptized believers have obeyed the apostle Paul’s advice and have kept dwelling with unbelieving mates to have the joy of finally ‘saving’ the marriage mate. But what about a believer who uses God’s spirit to endure persecution and opposition in the effort to hold the marriage together, but whose unbelieving mate still finds it disagreeable and at length departs, either by living independently somewhere else or by divorce or legal separation? Paul answers: “But if the unbelieving one proceeds to depart, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not in servitude under such circumstances, but God has called you to peace.”—1 Cor. 7:15.

2. If a separation does occur, is there a Scriptural ground for divorce, to be followed by remarriage to another?

² In the interest of his own Christian peace, the believer may let the unbelieving marriage mate depart and live elsewhere. The departed unbeliever may not remarry, any more than a departed Christian believer may do so: “But if she should actually depart, let her remain single or else make up again with her husband.” (1 Cor. 7:11) The abandoned believer has no Scripture grounds for procuring a legal divorce, that is, on the mere basis of abandonment or of incompatible difference of religion. Hence if he did get a divorce, he would not have the Scriptural freedom to relieve himself of unsatisfying legal singleness by remarrying. Jesus Christ himself says not, in the following words:

3. What did Jesus say on the matter, according to Matthew 19:3-9?

³ “Pharisees came up to him, intent on tempting him and saying: ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on every kind of grounds?’ In reply he said: ‘Did you not read that he who created them at the beginning made them male and female and said: “For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh”? So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together let no man put apart.’ They said to him: Why, then, did Moses prescribe giving a certificate of dismissal and divorcing her?’ He said to them: ‘Moses, out of regard for your hardheartedness, made the concession to you of divorcing your wives, but such has not been the case from the beginning. I say to you that whoever divorces his wife except on the grounds of fornication and marries another commits adultery.’”—Matt. 19:3-9; also Deuteronomy 24:1-4.

4. Do Jesus’ words support the passing of a total antidivorce law, and what is the most effective way to reduce or prevent legal divorce cases?

⁴ Thus Jesus did not say that divorce should be forbidden by the law of the State on any ground, even on adultery. The religious priests of today who insist on such a law of no possible divorce want to bind innocent marriage mates to adulterous partners. By such a law they shield the adulterous mate and also encourage and promote marital unfaithfulness by allowing no relief for the innocent mate. If they permitted the innocent mate to divorce the adulterous one, then it would nullify the confessional forgiveness that the priests extend to the adulterous mate. In that case the adulterous mate would not be shielded by the priest’s indulgence or remission of sins toward the adulterous one who merely confesses but does not reform. The Scriptural way, the most effective way, to reduce or prevent legal divorce is by teaching the Holy Scriptures and its morality and keeping the Christian congregation free of adulterers, and not by a total antidivorce law. Such a law has not stopped adultery.

5. What divorce rests upon a Scriptural basis, and what privilege does it allow the innocent divorcee?

⁵ God’s law under his new covenant, as stated by Jesus in his above-quoted words, certainly allows for divorce on the proper basis. That one Scriptural or New Covenant basis is adultery. Divorce on that basis frees the innocent mate to remarry without thus committing adultery himself by remarriage. Divorce on any other basis does not free the legally separated ones to remarry without becoming guilty of adultery in God’s eyes and so becoming unworthy of being in His congregation under Christ. This is how Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Mount are to be understood. He referred to the divorce law recorded by the prophet Moses in Deuteronomy 24:1 and went on to say: “You heard that it was said, ‘You must not commit adultery.’ . . . Moreover it was said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ However, I say to you that everyone divorcing his wife except on account of fornication makes her a subject for adultery, seeing that whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”—Matt. 5:27-32.

6. Do both Scriptural and unscriptural divorce make a woman a subject for adultery, or what difference, if any, is there?

⁶ If a dedicated Christian divorces his wife for adultery, how does he thereby make her a subject for adultery? She is already an adulteress by her own course and choice. It would not be divorce that drives her into adultery. However, if the husband divorces his wife for any other reasons, even reasons admitted by the law of the land, except for fornication or adultery, then he does expose her to adultery in the future. How so? Because according to God’s law the unadulterous wife is not disunited from her husband by such an unscriptural divorce. She is still his wife and is thus not free to remarry and have sex relations with another legal husband.

7. Which kind of divorcee, then, did Jesus mean when saying that whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery?

⁷ Hence when Jesus says, “seeing that whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery,” he does not mean any divorced woman at all. He means the woman legally divorced “except on account of fornication”; that is, an unadulterous divorced woman. This same principle holds true in the case of a husband whom his wife divorced although he had not acted adulterously. Any woman marrying him would lead him into adultery and herself become a fornicatrix.

8, 9. (a) Taken by themselves, what would the statements by Mark and by Luke mean for all divorcees? (b) In harmony with what are the statements by Mark and Luke to be explained, and why does adultery really break a marriage union and open the way for Scriptural divorce?

⁸ In Mark 10:11, 12 Jesus’ statement on divorce reads: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if ever a woman, after divorcing her husband, marries another, she commits adultery.” Luke 16:18 reads similarly: “Everyone that divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he that marries a woman divorced from a husband commits adultery.”

⁹ Those verses do not forbid divorce. But, taken by themselves, they would say that no divorcee would be entitled to remarry, except after the death of the divorced mate; and that to remarry during the lifetime of the divorced mate would mean to break God’s law against adultery. However, those two versions of Jesus’ words on divorce are to be explained in the light of the fuller statement recorded by the apostle Matthew, who shows that what Mark and Luke wrote on divorce is true if the ground for procuring the divorce is anything else but adultery on the part of the unfaithful mate. The single person who commits fornication with a harlotrous woman makes himself “one body” with a woman not his wife. Likewise the adulterer makes himself one body, not with his legal wife, but with the immoral person with whom he illegally lies. The adulterer thus sins against his own flesh. Yes, not only against his own personal flesh but also against his legal wife who till then has been “one flesh” with him. (1 Cor. 6:16, 17) For that reason, adultery really breaks the marriage union. This is why divorce on the basis of adultery formally and finally dissolves the legal marriage union. It frees the innocent partner to remarry with honor and with no stain on good morality during the lifetime of the guilty divorced mate.

10. What does divorcing an adulterous mate free that one for and also free the innocent mate for?

¹⁰ Divorcing an adulterous mate does not expose the divorced wrongdoer to adultery. Rather, the legal marriage, as long as it lasted, had failed to protect the unfaithful one from immorality. So the one marrying the adulterous divorcee merely marries an unclean person with an immoral record; and this remarriage does not cause the adulterous divorcee to become adulterous for the first time. If the innocent marriage mate divorces the adulterous mate, it frees the innocent one to remarry. The Scriptural divorcer is not divorcing merely to get rid of an adulterous mate no longer loved or physically safe to live with and have intercourse with. Such a divorcer is really freeing himself for remarriage, if that becomes advisable, due to the need for a faithful, dedicated life partner. By divorcing the adulterous mate, the divorcer simply lets the adulterous one have the kind of life desired, an immoral life.

JUDGMENT AGAINST IMMORAL ONES

11. Besides to legal marriage, to what more serious thing can adultery work disaster, especially since Jehovah has come to his temple?

¹¹ The committing of adultery can work disaster to the legal marriage tie through a resultant divorce. But it certainly works disaster to one’s relationship to God, who has now come to his spiritual temple with his judicial Messenger Jesus Christ to do judging. He warns: “‘I will come near to you people for the judgment, and I will become a speedy witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, . . . while they have not feared me,’ Jehovah of armies has said.”—Mal. 3:1, 5; also Hebrews 13:4.

12. What is the judicial decision handed down concerning such an immoral person, and what is the only way by which the immoral one could be saved from everlasting destruction?

¹² This divine judgment would be expressed in casting out, disfellowshiping the adulterous one from the congregation. To the congregation the judicial decision is handed down: “Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator . . . , not even eating with such a man. . . . ‘Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.’” (1 Cor. 5:11-13) Outside of God’s moral organization there is no everlasting life. Hence the dismissing of the fornicator and the adulterer could be the initial judgment act that points the way to everlasting destruction of the guilty one unless he shows unhypocritical heartfelt repentance toward God and reforms with a sincere resolve to keep morally clean and not contaminate God’s congregation and not bring reproach upon it. Then God would authorize his congregation to reinstate the repentant, reformed sinner, subjecting him to a period of probation until he puts himself back in the confidence of the clean congregation.

13, 14. (a) Where a mate commits adultery, how may the marriage bond be preserved and the couple keep living together? (b) By what action may the congregation keep the innocent, forgiving mate from having to live with a disfellowshiped mate? (c) Though the adulterous one may be forgiven, what must happen to any responsible office or services that he may hold in the congregation, and why?

¹³ If the adulterous marriage partner makes confession and shows an honest repentance and a resolve to be true and faithful to the marriage vow henceforth and then implores forgiveness, the innocent mate may choose to forgive and to resume marriage relations and not divorce the adulterous one. Under certain circumstances this not only preserves the marriage bond but also keeps the innocent mate from having to live, eat and sleep with a disfellowshiped mate; which would be a spiritually difficult situation. How?

¹⁴ Immorality affects the privileges one may enjoy in the congregation. For this reason the adulterous mate should also confess to the representatives of the congregation. These responsible servants of the congregation may take into consideration the repentance and sorrow of the guilty one and whether it was the first offense, and they could mercifully respect the innocent mate’s forgiveness of the repentant, converting mate; and in order to preserve the spiritual oneness of the married couple, they would not disfellowship the adulterous one. They would hold the innocent mate responsible to enforce a probation upon the forgiven sinner long enough to prove the recovery of the sinner to good morals, and they would check on the guilty one monthly for a full year to help in the reformation. However, if the sinner has been holding any responsible offices and service assignments in the congregation, then the congregation’s representative committee must arrange to divest the sinner of such offices or assignments. Why? Because, according to the Scriptural qualifications for holding a position of responsibility and special service in the congregation, the holder has to be exemplary, irreprehensible, clean in conscience, above reproach from the Devil’s agents. (1 Tim. 3:1-9; Titus 1:5-9) Hence, even though the converting adulterous one has been forgiven by the innocent marriage partner and by the congregation’s representative committee, he must be held unfit for office or special service.

15. In what situation would an innocent mate’s forgiveness not ward off disfellowshipment?

¹⁵ In many cases an innocent mate’s forgiveness may prove to be only limited in its power to relieve the adulterous one of all the serious consequences of the immorality. If the immoral mate committed adultery with a person outside the congregation such as a fornicator or a harlot, no congregation action would need to be taken toward the immoral outsider. There would be no need to ask forgiveness of the outside fornicator or harlot or to straighten out matters with such an immoral outsider. But if one carried on the sexual uncleanness inside one’s own congregation or another Christian congregation, then the innocent mate’s forgiveness may not be sufficient to ward off a disfellowshipment.

16. In case a member committed adultery inside his congregation or another congregation, why might the offender’s congregation have to disfellowship despite the innocent mate’s forgiveness?

¹⁶ Say the adultery was committed with the husband or with the wife of another couple in the same congregation or another congregation, or with a minor person under parental care or under a guardian. Then others who are seriously affected by the moral offense would come into the picture. The husband whose wife was violated, or the wife whose husband sinned with another’s wife, or the parents whose child was corrupted—do they forgive? Or do they want disciplinary action to be taken against the immoral married person? The innocent marriage mate may forgive for private personal reasons, but that mate cannot forgive for these others who have been hurt. Such personal, domestic forgiveness does not settle outside accounts for the guilty one. It cannot squash outside demands for disciplinary action by the congregation or demands for reparation through legal action outside in the courts of the land. The congregation may therefore decide to disfellowship despite the innocent mate’s personal forgiveness to the wrongdoer.

17, 18. (a) For example, how might a traveling man, with an official capacity, visit and corrupt a number of yielding women in such outside congregations, and also pray under a misimpression? (b) How did Jude describe such a man?

¹⁷ The congregation committee has to consider, also, the enormity of the offense. How widespread was it? Were other congregations concerned, and was the purity of their local organization defiled? Say, for example, a married man made regular trips to a number of congregations and in all these or in some of them he made improper advances to single women or to wives—wherever he could find some willing or yielding sister. He is making a general practice of immorality, and that within God’s holy congregation. He is defiling God’s organization in its several congregations. He is abusing what responsible office he may hold respecting those congregations. Under cover of official service he is slipping in merely to satisfy his perverted cravings. He cows weak, timid sisters into yielding to his unclean designs. Privately he prays to God to forgive him, but he makes no real effort to control himself and correct himself. So he keeps on sinning, under the misimpression that God’s loving-kindness through Christ will cancel the sins that he enjoys committing, without regard for the purity and name of God’s congregation.

¹⁸ Such a man proves himself to be one of those spoken of in Jude 4: “Certain men have slipped in who have long ago been appointed by the Scriptures to the judgment described below, ungodly men, turning the undeserved kindness of our God into an excuse for loose conduct and proving false to our only Owner and Lord, Jesus Christ.”

19. Why must such a man be disfellowshiped, even though his wife does forgive him and not divorce him?

¹⁹ In God’s time this responsible traveling man is found out and exposed. His wife forgives him when he admits his wrong. But is her forgiveness of any avail? No! It is no shield for him from deserved consequences. He cannot transform himself overnight. His forced admission of guilt and his expressing of regret does not mean any real reformation. He is a danger in the midst of the congregations of God’s dedicated people, a powerful bit of leaven that can ferment the whole mass. He is a deliberate, confirmed defiler of what is holy. He is untrustworthy, a risk, an unfit man to have among us. According to Bible principles he must be disfellowshiped. God’s congregation must be cleansed and safeguarded, even though his wife forgives and does not divorce him.

20. When an unmarried adult fornicator wishes to confess his sin, to whom shall he go, and how will he be dealt with by the congregation?

²⁰ But what of the adult single person who commits fornication and has no mate to whom to confess his transgression? When sad and cut to the heart on account of his wrongdoing, can he go to someone to help him? The congregation service committee of spiritually qualified brothers serve the whole congregation. If a single person is overtaken in a violation of Jehovah’s law, he may confess his guilt to the committee. The committee must then decide what disciplinary action shall be followed in each case, whether disfellowshiping or probation. They have the responsibility for the welfare of the congregation and each member in it and must determine what is in the best interests of the congregation. If they find the single person has been overtaken in a hasty act, his first offense, and his attitude shows true sorrow and repentance, they are within bounds of their duties before Jehovah to extend mercy, just as they can in the case of a married transgressor, and to set a period of probation during which the offender would report to them regularly on his conduct and efforts at reformation. If he were a servant, of course, he would have to resign his office as one no longer irreprehensible.

PURSUIT OF PEACE BY THE MARRIED

21. (a) During the 1958-1959 service year how many were disfellowshiped from the New World society? How many were reinstated? How many remained disfellowshiped? (b) Is the smallness of the percentage of disfellowshiped ones to be ignored?

²¹ During the service year of 1958-1959 there were 6,552 individuals disfellowshiped by the New World society of Jehovah’s witnesses for various reasons. Many of these were cases of immorality, either fornication or adultery. Where it became proper and timely, mercy was displayed, and there were 1,597 of all disfellowshiped during past years reinstated during the 1958-1959 service year upon proof of godly sorrow, repentance and reformation. These were put on probation for a reasonable period of time, before being granted again the general privileges of all in the congregation. So, at the end of the said service year there were, out of all those who had been disfellowshiped during recent years, a total of 25,143 still cut off from the congregation of Jehovah’s people. While it is too bad that any should make it necessary to disfellowship them, we are comforted to know that, out of all the hundreds of thousands who are reporting preaching activities throughout the earth, only .81 percent were disfellowshiped. That is only eight-tenths of one percent. Still even that low figure is a warning to each one of us.

22. To what have married Christians been called, and how should they guard this?

²² Disfellowshiping removes a person from peaceful relations with Jehovah God. Married Christians should avoid with dread such a wrecking of peace with God. God has called married Christians to peace. (1 Cor. 7:15) In their married state let them jealously guard their peace with him. That means guarding, as far as possible, their domestic peace as between husband and wife. To this end let them lead lives faithful to God and his Christ and faithful to their marriage mates with whom they are “one flesh.”

23. (a) Why, especially now, is there no room for wrong marriage conduct any more than back in Eden? (b) What, then, should married Christians do to vindicate the Provider of marriage for man and woman?

²³ On the other side of the universal war of Armageddon, now not so far away, there lies the restored earthly Paradise. But even at the present time since the year 1919 the great Planter and Cultivator Jehovah God has brought his dedicated witnesses on earth into a spiritual Paradise. There they enjoy peace, joy, and all the other fruitage of the holy spirit, and they bring forth all the fruitage of good works in preaching the good news of the Kingdom world-wide. In this spiritual Paradise, just as originally in the garden of Eden when occupied by the perfect Adam and Eve, there is no room for polygamy or improper marriage conduct or disregard for the theocratic relationship of man and wife. May married believers appreciate the situation and take the opportunity to work for the salvation of the beloved marriage mate. By their marriage conduct may they honor God. Great will be their reward. Their marriage will serve his purpose and play its part in vindicating him for lovingly providing this dignified, honorable peaceful union of husband and wife.

Covenants Between God and Man

IF IT were possible, would you be willing to make an agreement with a tiny ant? Would you enter into a covenant with a flea? If such creatures had sufficient intelligence to reason and to communicate with you, would you promise things to them for their betterment and then keep your promise? Or would you disdain them, refusing to make a covenant with them because they are so small, weak and insignificant?

The insignificance of man in comparison to God is much more striking than that of an ant or a flea in comparison to man. To God whole nations are as less than ants, even less than fine dust particles. “Look! The nations are as a drop from a bucket; and as the film of dust on the scales they have been accounted.” (Isa. 40:15) Despite the fact that the nations are smaller than fine dust particles in the eyes of God, he has been willing to make covenants with men who exercise faith in him.

A covenant can be either a mutual agreement between two parties or a promise on the part of one party to do something for another. The Hebrew word for it stems from a root that means “he cut.” This undoubtedly comes from the ancient custom of cutting or dividing a sacrificial animal to ratify a covenant. The practice is mentioned at Jeremiah 34:18 in these words: “They did not carry out the words of the covenant that they concluded before me with the calf that they cut in two that they might pass between its pieces.” This explains what is meant by the expression ‘cut a covenant.’—Gen. 15:18, footnote a.

COVENANT WITH NOAH

The great Ruler of the universe gave a promise to Noah before the flood that can be considered as the first direct mention of a covenant between man and God. “I do establish my covenant with you, and you must go into the ark, you and your sons and your wife and your sons’ wives with you.” (Gen. 6:18) This was a covenant that pertained to the survival of Noah and his household. Noah showed his faith in God’s promise and his worthiness of having it fulfilled toward him by building the ark and entering it with his household. If he had failed to do as God commanded, his disobedience would have made the covenant invalid and he would not have been preserved. Men who break agreements with God are “deserving of death.”—Rom. 1:31, 32.

After the flood Jehovah made another covenant with Noah, using him as a representative for the human race. The covenant contained a promise that Jehovah God would never again destroy all flesh by means of a flood. Because the rainbow was given as a visual symbol and reminder of it, the covenant came to be known as the rainbow covenant. “I do establish my covenant with you: No more will all flesh be cut off by waters of a deluge, and no more will there occur a deluge to bring the earth to ruin. My rainbow I do give in the cloud, and it must serve as a sign of the covenant between me and the earth.”—Gen. 9:11, 13.

Although the fulfillment of this covenant promise did not hinge upon human actions, this does not mean man can break the divine law stated in Genesis 9:4-6 about the sacredness of blood or life without punishment. Without breaking his promise about another global flood, God can destroy, by other means, humans who willfully violate his laws.

THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT

As it has been noted, the men with whom God has made covenants have been men of faith, men who obeyed him. Abraham was such a man. He was born 352 years after the Flood, and at the age of seventy-five he had the honor of being brought into covenant relationship with the Ruler of the universe. Jehovah made a covenant with him, saying: “I shall make a great nation out of you and I shall bless you and I will make your name great; and prove yourself a blessing. And I will bless those who bless you, and him that calls down evil upon you I shall curse, and all the families of the ground will certainly bless themselves by means of you.”—Gen. 12:2, 3.

Jehovah’s covenant with Abraham became operative when Abraham obeyed the divine command to leave his country and go to the land of Canaan. At various times thereafter God confirmed this covenant. One such occasion was when Abraham had passed a severe test of faith that involved his beloved son Isaac.—Gen. 22:15-18.

The Abrahamic covenant has its fulfillment in Jesus Christ. He is the Seed of Abraham that brings blessings to all nations of the earth that exercise faith in him and the Greater Abraham, Jehovah God. “The purpose was that the blessing of Abraham might come to be by means of Jesus Christ for the nations.”—Gal. 3:14.

Because of his faith Abraham was counted righteous in the eyes of God. As a sign or seal of this Jehovah made with him the covenant of circumcision. This was a covenant that required Abraham and all his male offspring, as well as his servants, to be circumcised. Regarding it the apostle Paul said, many centuries later: “He received a sign, namely, circumcision, as a seal of the righteousness by the faith he had while in his uncircumcised state, that he might be the father of all those having faith while in uncircumcision, in order for righteousness to be counted to them.”—Rom. 4:11.

THE LAW COVENANT

Jehovah made a covenant with the descendants of Abraham 430 years after the Abrahamic covenant. It was made with them at Mount Horeb in Arabia while they were assembled in a vast crowd at the base of the mountain. This memorable covenant came to be known as the law covenant. It is an outstanding example of how the great Ruler of the universe shows undeserved kindness, toward humans.

The law covenant did not replace the Abrahamic covenant but was an addition to it. It directed the people toward the Seed of Abraham, Jesus Christ. “As to the covenant previously validated by God, the Law that has come into being four hundred and thirty years later does not invalidate it, so as to abolish the promise.”—Gal. 3:17.

For Abraham’s fleshly descendants the law covenant was designed to serve as a protection from the bad influence of pagan nations as well as to make them conscious of their sinful condition and their need for a perfect, sin-atoning sacrifice. “Why, then, the Law? It was added to make transgressions manifest, until the seed should arrive to whom the promise had been made.”—Gal. 3:19.

The law covenant was bilateral or two-sided. Jehovah promised to make the nation of Israel his special property and to give them certain blessings provided they remained obedient. “‘If you will strictly obey my voice and will indeed keep my covenant, then you will certainly become my special property out of all other peoples, because the whole earth belongs to me. And you yourselves will become to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ . . . After that all the people answered unanimously and said: ‘All that Jehovah has spoken we are willing to do.’” (Ex. 19:5, 6, 8) The agreement was validated by the blood of sacrificial animals. “So Moses took the blood and sprinkled it upon the people and said: ‘Here is the blood of the covenant that Jehovah has concluded with you as respects all these words.’”—Ex. 24:8.

THE COVENANT WITH LEVI

When the people of Israel made a golden calf for an object of worship while encamped at Mount Horeb, the sons of Levi were the first ones to stand with Moses in opposition to this wrong conduct. Out of zeal for pure worship they promptly obeyed Moses by destroying 3,000 idolaters. The blessing Jehovah conferred upon them after this was a covenant for the priesthood. They were separated from the rest of the people for special service to Jehovah. “Jehovah continued to speak to Moses, saying: ‘As for me, look! I do take the Levites from among the sons of Israel in place of all the first-born opening the womb of the sons of Israel, and the Levites must become mine.’”—Num. 3:11, 12; Ex. 32:26-29.

It was similar zeal for Jehovah’s pure worship that moved the Levite Phinehas, a grandson of Aaron, to execute an Israelite and the Baal-worshiping Midianite woman that the man had taken for himself, contrary to the law of God. Because of this zeal Jehovah made with Phinehas a covenant of peace, promising him that the priesthood would remain in his family. It appears that he became a leader over the family of Korahites who guarded the entrances of the sacred tent and the camp. Since this was a covenant for the priesthood, it might be considered as part of the covenant with Levi. “Here I am giving him my covenant of peace. And it must serve as the covenant of a priesthood to time indefinite for him and his offspring after him.”—Num. 25:12, 13.

THE KINGDOM COVENANT

Due to his faith and obedience, King David was singled out by Jehovah to become party to an outstanding covenant. It was a kingdom covenant that backed up the covenant with Abraham, for it made certain the fulfillment of the promise to bless all nations and families of the earth. “I shall certainly raise up your seed after you, which will come out of your inward parts, and I shall indeed firmly establish his kingdom. He is the one that will build a house for my name, and I shall certainly establish the throne of his kingdom firmly forever.”—2 Sam. 7:12, 13.

The seed that God raised up from David, and whose kingdom he firmly established, is Jesus Christ. “This one will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and Jehovah God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will be king over the house of Jacob forever, and there will be no end of his kingdom.”—Luke 1:32, 33.

The kingdom covenant is of vital importance to mankind, for it insures the establishment of permanent peace upon earth and just rule for all peoples. God will not fail to keep it.—Ps. 89:33-37.

THE NEW COVENANT

Long in advance, Jehovah foretold the establishment of a new covenant to replace the law covenant after it had served its purpose. Since the purpose of the Law was to lead descendants of Abraham to the promised Seed, Jesus Christ, it was due to end when Christ fulfilled its purpose by laying down his life as a ransom. “Christ is the accomplished end of the Law.”—Rom. 10:4.

It was through the prophet Jeremiah that Jehovah foretold the new covenant. “‘Look! There are days coming,’ is the utterance of Jehovah, ‘and I will conclude with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant.’” (Jer. 31:31) Jesus announced this covenant to his followers on the night before his death by saying: “This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood.” (1 Cor. 11:25) The blood of his perfect sacrifice validated it, putting it into force. Fifty days after his resurrection it became fully operative when the first of 144,000 spiritual Israelites were brought into it.

The new covenant was not made with fleshly Israel but with spiritual Israel, consisting of Jews and non-Jews. “Moreover, if you belong to Christ, you are really Abraham’s seed, heirs with reference to a promise.” (Gal. 3:29) These spiritual Israelites were given the marvelous promise of being made priests and kings with Christ in his heavenly kingdom. Their being taken out of the nations as a people for God’s name fulfilled the purpose of the covenant. The perfect sin-atoning merit of Christ’s sacrifice makes possible for them the fulfillment of the promise: “I shall forgive their error, and their sin I shall remember no more.” (Jer. 31:34) On the basis of that sacrifice their errors and inherited sin are forgiven and righteousness is imputed to them so they can be begotten as spiritual sons of God.—Ps. 50:5.

The new covenant does not cancel the Abrahamic covenant or the kingdom covenant but is a valuable addition to them that makes their fulfillment possible. Although the 144,000 spiritual Israelites are the only ones taken into it, they are not the only ones it benefits. In due time it will cause blessings to come to a great crowd of faithful people.

By means of these various covenants God has manifested his great unselfishness and love, proving that his greatness and exaltedness do not mean he is not interested in lowly humans. Instead of ignoring them he shows them undeserved kindness. The covenants he has made with faithful humans give us hope for a glorious future on a beautified earth. His word will not return to him “without results.”—Isa. 55:11.

Pursuing Peace in the Love of Life

WHAT person in his right mind does not love life and want to see good days? Without life we could not enjoy anything. However, life without peace would not have good days. Peace with whom? Peace, first of all, with God. Why so? Because without it peace with one’s fellow man would not be possible. It is because men today are not concerned with making peace with God that there is so little peace between them.—1 Pet. 3:8-12.a

As dedicated Christians we have made peace with God, have become reconciled to him; now we want to pursue peace with our fellow creatures both outside and within the Christian congregation. To this end we must make our minds over. All old-world notions about one race or nation as being superior to others must be got rid of. Jesus Christ by his sacrifice did not break down the barriers or wall between Jew and Gentile only to let us raise others, but so that all his followers throughout the earth might be united in one fold.—Eph. 2:11-18; Col. 3:11.

Greatly helping us in the pursuit of peace are the Kingdom, established in 1914, and the theocratic rule set up among us in 1938. How so? Because even as, when there was a king in Israel, men could no longer do what was right in their own eyes, so the Kingdom’s establishment brought stricter supervision, especially from 1919 onward. And since 1938 the inequalities that existed among God’s people world-wide have been done away with by the fulfillment of Isaiah 60:17.

Exercising self-control is imperative to our pursuing peace. “Safeguard your tongue against what is bad, and your lips against speaking deception.” We may not pay back injury for injury and reviling for reviling but must attempt to bestow a blessing, remembering that “an answer, when mild, turns away rage.” We simply have to refrain from all provocative speech.—Ps. 34:13; Prov. 15:1.

Nor may we overlook the need of praying for peace. If we really have the good of God’s organization at heart we will heed the psalmist’s words: “Ask for the peace of Jerusalem. Those loving you will be free from care. May peace continue within your rampart . . . For the sake of my brothers and my companions I will now speak: ‘May there be peace within you.’” That such prayer for peace is fruitful the apostle Paul shows: “By prayer and supplication along with thanksgiving let your petitions be made known to God, and the peace of God that excels all thought will guard your hearts and your mental powers by means of Christ Jesus.”—Ps. 122:6-8; Phil. 4:6, 7.

No doubt the best way to pursue peace is by our “always having plenty to do in the work of the Lord.” Peace with God and our fellow man does not mean laziness, careless ease or inactivity. Far from it! At peace among ourselves we go forth with our “feet shod with the equipment of the good news of peace,” and say, in effect, to the householders we meet, “May this house have peace.” We urge all who will hear to make peace with God. Pursuing peace also means being kind and tactful when presenting the message and particularly when coming face to face with opposition. This is a most joyful work, for “those counseling peace have rejoicing.”—1 Cor. 15:58; Eph. 6:15; Luke 10:5; Prov. 12:20.

[Footnotes]

The Moabite Stone

“AS REGARDS Mesha the king of Moab, he became a sheep raiser and he paid to the king of Israel a hundred thousand lambs and a hundred thousand unshorn male sheep. And it came about that as soon as Ahab died the king of Moab began to revolt against the king of Israel.” (2 Ki. 3:4, 5) The revolt of King Mesha of Moab is corroborated by ancient writing outside the Bible—an inscribed stone called the Moabite Stone. Written in a dialect differing little from Biblical Hebrew, it was erected by King Mesha partly to commemorate this revolt. In 1868 this stone was found within the territory of Moab. Concerning it, James B. Pritchard writes in Archaeology and the Old Testament:

“A most spectacular enlargement of biblical history has come from a Canaanite inscription, called the Moabite stone, which turned up ninety years ago in the Arab village of Dhiban in Transjordan, about halfway along the east side of the Dead Sea. . . . The famous slab of black basalt [is] inscribed with an account of the wars and building program of Mesha, king of Moab. . . . The text, a long one of thirty-four lines, is written in the first person singular and begins with a somewhat boastful recital by Mesha, king of Moab, of his triumphs over the house of Omri, king of Israel. . . .

“Mesha interpreted the success of his enemy, Israel, as a token of his own god’s anger with his land: ‘As for Omri, king of Israel, he humbled Moab many years, for Chemosh was angry at his land. And his son followed him and he also said, “I will humble Moab.” In my time he spoke thus, but I have triumphed over him and over his house, while Israel hath perished for ever!’

“Mesha [said he] received his instructions for battle from his god Chemosh. When his god gave him a victory, he ‘devoted’—the same word is used in the inscription as appears in the Hebrew account of Joshua devoting the spoils of Jericho to Yahweh—all the inhabitants of the town of Nebo to his god Ashtar-Chemosh. The incident of the taking of Nebo is described by Mesha: ‘And Chemosh said to me, “Go, take Nebo from Israel!” So I went by night and fought against it from the break of dawn until noon, taking it and slaying all, seven thousand men, boys, women, girls and maidservants, for I had devoted them to destruction for the god Ashtar-Chemosh. And I took from there the . . . of Yahweh [Jehovah], dragging them before Chemosh.’ In this brief passage we have the only mention of the name of Israel’s god, Yahweh [Jehovah], ever found outside Palestine proper.”

Moab’s king was indeed boastful. His boastings might seem to indicate that Moab’s false god Chemosh was victorious over the true God Jehovah. But the Moabite stone does not tell the full story. After Mesha’s revolt, King Jehoram of Israel enlisted the aid of King Jehoshaphat of Judah in an expedition against Moab. The allied forces were almost destroyed, however, in the dry wilderness because of lack of water. At this critical time Jehoshaphat called for Elisha the prophet. Elisha explained that Jehovah would help in the war against Moab only for the sake of Jehoshaphat. Said Elisha to the king of Israel: “As Jehovah of armies before whom I do stand is living, if it were not that it is the face of Jehoshaphat the king of Judah for which I am having consideration, I would not look at you or see you.” Jehovah would give the victory over Moab, said Elisha, “and this will indeed be a trivial thing in the eyes of Jehovah and he will certainly give Moab into your hand.” True to Jehovah’s promise, the Moabites were greatly humiliated and defeated.—2 Ki. 3:14, 18.

The false god Chemosh could not save Moab, and King Mesha’s writing on the Moabite Stone cannot cover up Jehovah’s victory over Moab, because the Bible records many prophecies and history attests to their fulfillment. Said Jeremiah: “Moab will certainly be annihilated from being a people, for it is against Jehovah that he has put on great airs [as did Mesha on his Moabite Stone]. Woe to you, O Moab! The people of Chemosh have perished.” And Zephaniah prophesied: “‘Therefore, as I am alive,’ is the utterance of Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, ‘Moab herself will become just like Sodom, and the sons of Ammon like Gomorrah, a place possessed by nettles, and a salt pit, and a desolate waste, even to time indefinite. . . . This is what they will have instead of their pride, because they reproached and kept putting on great airs against the people of Jehovah of armies.’”—Jer. 48:42, 46; Zeph. 2:9, 10.

Questions From Readers

● What Scriptural principles guide in the training of children in homes where one parent is a dedicated Christian witness of Jehovah and the other is not?—Based on many questions received.

According to the Scriptures the husband and father is the head of the home. If he is a dedicated Christian witness of Jehovah it is his responsibility to see that his family receives spiritual as well as material provisions. (1 Tim. 5:8) Even if his wife is an unbeliever, he must see to it that his children receive proper Christian education and training both at home and at the Kingdom Hall, and he should do all that he can to help his wife see the truth of God’s Word. At the same time he ought to grant his wife freedom to worship God her own way, and she may at times insist on taking the children to her place of worship. Granting her freedom of worship may even mean letting her have a Christmas tree in one room of the house during that season, although the believing husband would not let other rooms of the house or its outside be decorated. By thus extending freedom of worship to his wife he shows that he loves her as he loves himself.—Eph. 5:28, 29.

Likewise, the unbelieving father, since he is the head of the house, may dictate the religion of the children. However, in view of the fact that the mother is responsible for the conduct of the children in the absence of the father, she must inculcate in them right principles and may witness to them as opportunity affords. In cases where the husband is severely opposed, she may not be able to take them in the service or to the meetings, if he forbids it. But she can continue by various means to teach the children Bible principles and truths. If the children ask questions, she has the right to answer them.

Suppose such a father should make an issue of the flag salute. Since every Christian is instructed by God’s Word to make a defense of his belief and course of action, a dedicated mother has the right to make such a defense and to give an explanation, not only to her children but also to her husband, so that all in the family understand her faithfulness to Christian principles. (1 Pet. 3:15) Since the father in this case is opposed to the mother’s having the children take the Scriptural position with regard to flag saluting, then, aside from explaining to the children what the Scriptures have to say on the matter, the mother would have no right to insist that the children comply with the Scriptural principle in this respect, because the husband, as head of the house, requires the children to participate in the ceremony. The children would have to consider their father’s wishes, and the mother may not interfere by sending a note to the teachers asking that her children be excused when the ceremony is conducted in school. However, if after the children learn of their mother’s position and see that it is Scriptural and hence the will of God, and if out of their own conscience they take their stand in school and elsewhere and refuse to participate in such ceremonies, then, of course, such action is not due to insistence on the mother’s part but is of the children’s own accord, and the husband could not find fault with her. After all, it is the child’s responsibility to take his own stand according to his conscience, and if his father punishes him for conscientiously refraining from engaging in patriotic ceremonies, then the child is suffering for righteousness’ sake.—1 Pet. 2:19, 20.

In harmony with the counsel found at 1 Peter 3:1-6, the dedicated Christian wife of an unbeliever will be exemplary in conduct and will show deep respect for her husband and teach the same to their children. However, she will not fail to participate actively in true worship, and by her faithful conduct and the things about which she speaks she will exercise a powerful influence on both her husband and her children, so that they too may be saved.—1 Cor. 7:14, 16.

In the case of the child who shows appreciation for the Bible truths learned from the believing parent, Christian principles also govern the course he must take. The unbeliever may still insist that the child attend church, and the minor child, properly subject to his parent, would be obliged to do so; but at church he could not conscientiously participate in the idolatrous ceremonies, and when discussion periods give him opportunity to do so, he will defend the Word of his heavenly Father. When required by an unbelieving parent to do something that would directly violate the law of Jehovah God, the child would be guided by the counsel in the Bible: “We must obey God as ruler rather than men.” “He that has greater affection for father or mother than for me is not worthy of me.” “Children, be obedient to your parents in union with the Lord, for this is righteous.”—Acts 5:29; Matt. 10:37; Eph. 6:1.

Thus in all situations dedicated members of divided households show proper evaluation of their circumstances. They recognize that their first responsibility is to God, and, consistent with this, they comply with the God-given instructions on recognition of headship within the household and show the love and deep respect that are due.

● Do Jehovah’s ministers perform marriage ceremonies between two persons who have not made a dedication?—L.S., U.S.A.

Whether a Christian minister of Jehovah performs a marriage ceremony between two undedicated persons or not is up to the discretion of the minister, depending upon the circumstances. He may well reason that a good witness could be given to the truth, that the high principles of the New World society could be made known, and that the two persons could be given proper Scriptural counsel on the seriousness and obligations of the wedded state.

However, before performing such a ceremony the Christian minister of Jehovah should first make certain that both parties are Scripturally free to marry. More than that, they should also be honorable persons, having a good report among people on the outside. But even when these conditions are met, it is up to the minister as to whether he chooses to perform the ceremony or not. He is not obligated to do so.

As for the use of the local Kingdom Hall on such an occasion, this would be up to the congregation committee to decide.

Announcements

FIELD MINISTRY

‘Pursuing peace in the love of life’ is our service theme for December. (1 Pet. 3:10, 11) Appropriately, in the field ministry we will offer the peace-promoting information contained in the books From Paradise Lost to Paradise Regained and “Let God Be True,” with two booklets on Bible subjects, on a contribution of $1.25.

WHAT IS YOUR FUTURE?

Do you know what the next few years will bring? No man can know all things that will take place, but what the final outcome will be is no secret. That is because God’s Word contains the answer. Your future is a part of that answer. Find your place there. Read the two hard-bound books From Paradise Lost to Paradise Regained and “New Heavens and a New Earth.” Send $1.25 now and receive free the two comforting and thought-provoking booklets Healing of the Nations Has Drawn Near and God’s Kingdom Rules—Is the World’s End Near?

“WATCHTOWER” STUDIES FOR THE WEEKS

January 1: Married Believers Called to Peace and Salvation, ¶1-22. Page 713.

January 8: Married Believers Called to Peace and Salvation, ¶23-41. Page 718.

January 15: Separation and Divorce for the Sake of Peace, Page 723.